A type of social influence which causes a person to act in response to an order given by another person

In the experiment, the aim was to investigate the obedience level participants would show when an authority figure tells them to administer electric shocks to another human

Interested in the contradiction between the ordinariness of men involved in war crimes during the second world war and the terrible deeds they carried out

Told that the generator was connected to electrodes that were placed on the victim in the other room

Ppts were seated in front of the generator and asked to read a series of word pairs to the learner that had to memorise them

Ppts were taken to a separate room after watching the learner be strapped to a chair

Ppts were asked to draw a slip from a hat to pick their role but it was fixed

A ppt who leaves before 450V was labelled defiant and those that stayed as obedient

Ppts were debriefed and met the confederate afterwards to show no harm done

Had 30 marked switches to indicate each voltage, moving up by 15V

The learner gave a predetermined set of responses, 3 wrong 1 right

It's important to remember that Milgram didn't expect his experiment to have such dramatic effects

Consulted psychiatrists before the experiment and concluded that most would shock to 150V and only 1% to 450V

The study had been criticised for not actually testing obedience

It has been suggested that the ppts guessed that the shocks weren't real and therefore, their behaviour wasn't being measured

Reveals something important about the relationship between authority figure and participant

Milgram argued that the lab environment accurately reflects wider authority relationships in real life

Said he would sign the right papers when he arrived 10 minutes later

21/22 nurses obeyed and started to prepare the dosage before they were stopped and debriefed

Phoned by an unknown doctor (confederate) and told to give 20mg to a patient (daily dosage clearly 10mg)

Set his experiment in a number of psychiatric hospitals in USA

Nurses said doctors often phoned through instructions and became annoyed if nurses questioned them

Ppts were willing to continue giving shocks as they identified with the experimenter as a scientist

As long as the prods related to the science, they were effective

People identify themselves as belonging to particular social group

The ppts continued because they identified with science not obedience

Clearly undermines Milgram's conclusions because they contradict his claim that his findings were due to accepting the authority

Milgram changed the variables in a variety of ways in order to study proximity effects

Refers to the physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving the order to

Frequently pretended to give shocks or weaker shocks than ordered

People in positions of authority often have outfits that symbolise authority

3 male researchers gave direct requests to 153 random pedestrians in Brooklyn

Provide further evidence that obedience is influenced by the authority that a person seems to have

When interviewed after, people claimed they had obeyed the woman in uniform because she appeared to have authority

Carried out a study where a female researcher dressed as a police officer, a business executive or a beggar, stopped people and told them to give change to a male reseracher for an expired parking meter

Both the original and variations have been replicated in other cultures, finding similar results

Original study was criticised as ppts could've guessed that shocks weren't real and so the behaviour wasn't measured

It's even more likely that ppts in the variations realised it wasn't a real study and displayed demand characteristics

Suggesting that Nazis executing Jewish people was them only doing their duty implies they were also victims

Some people consider a situational perspective on the Holocaust offensive because it removes personal responsibility

People move from the autonomous state to the agentic state when confronted with an authority figure (agentic shift)

When we act as an agent of authority, we find it easy to deny responsibility as we are just following orders

If we obey an order that goes against our morality, we experience moral strain

Althought people may want to stop, they feel unable to due to binding factors (aspects of the situation that allow a person to minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour)

Agentic state - individuals allow someone else to direct their behaviour

Autonomous state - individuals direct their own behaviour and taken responsibility for the consequences

Blass and Schmitt (2001) found that people who saw Milgram's study blamed the experimenter, indicating they believed the ppts were agents of authority

Milgram's research demonstrated how the majority of people follow instructions even when acting against their own conscience

Agency theory cannot explain why some people disobey figures

There are alternative reasons why people obey an authority figure

This authority is justified by the individual's position of power within a social hierarchy

We are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us

Concerns the extent to which the body is a legitimate source of authority

This is the power individuals hold to give orders because of their position in the system

This is linked to status and hierarchy within a particular establishment

Refers to the extent with which the order is perceived to be a legitimate area for the authority figure

In some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience

Reflects the ways that diff. societies are structured and are raised to perceive authority figures

Legitimacy theory is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience

Claimed a particular personality type is more likely to obey an authority

Was interested in invesigating why Nazi soldiers were so willing to persecute and kill members of minority groups

Developed an F scale to measure the relationship between a person's personality type and prejudiced beliefs

Study of more than 2000 middle class, white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups

Those that scored highly identified with 'strong' people and were generally contemptuous of the 'weak'

Strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice

Distinct personality pattern characterised by strict adherence to conventional values and a belief in absolute obedience

Provided a possible explanation for why some people require little pressure to obey

Parents are harsh and show little affection & issues severe punishments

Consciously have very high opinions of their parents but unconsciously feel very aggressive towards them

Found that those who went to 450V scored higher on authoritarianism tests & lower on scales of social responsibility

Large body of evidence to indicate people who are very rigid and conservative have been brought up in the way Adorno described

Maximise the similarities within the group & differences between our group and others

In reality, left wing also emphasises the importance of complete obedience

The theory is limited as it can't accont for obedience across the whole political spectrum

The 'F' scale measures the tendency towards an extreme right wing ideology

Knowing the ppts test scores meant they knew whether the interviewee was likely to have the personality type

Interviews were vulnerable to interviewer bias as the interviewers knew the hypothesis of the study

May have recorded only the information they needed to confirm their hypothesis

The ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority

Conformity reduced to 5.5% when one confederate gave a diff. answer

The dissenter's disobedience frees the ppt to act on their own conscience

Obedience dropped to 10% when genuine ppts were joined by a disobedient confederate

Even if the dissenter wore thick glasses and had vision problems

Allen & Levin (1971) found independence increased with one dissenter in an Asch type study

Resistance isn't motivated by following someone else but frees the pressure from the group

Gamson et al (1982) found higher levels of resistance in their study than Milgram

Had to produce evidence to help an oil company run a smear campaign

Internals believe they are mostly responsible for what happens

Rotter (1966) proposed a concept concerned with internal vs external LOC

If someone takes personal responsibility, they are more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs

People with high internal are more self-confident, achievement-oriented, intelligent and need less social approval

Holland (1967) repeated Milgram's study and measured LOC

If resistance was linked to internal, we would expect people to become more internal

May be due to changing society where many things are outside personal control

Twenge et al (2004) meta-analysis from American obedience studies over 40yrs

Suggests that LOC can explain only a limited range of situations

Rotter et al (1982) found LOC is only important in new situations

A form of social influence where a minority rejects the established norm of the majority and persuades the majority to move to the minority position

In the first part, 2 confedereates answered green and were completley consistent

Shown 36 slides which were clealy diff. shades of blue and asked to state hte colour outloud

Ppts were given eye tests to ensure they weren't colour blind and then placed in a group of 4 other ppts and 2 confederaets

Moscovici's experiment suggests that minorities can influence majority

It indicates that this influence is more effective when consistent

Synchrony - people in minority all saying the same thing

Over time, consistency in the minority increases hte amount of interest

Important that these activities are at some risk to the minority to demonstrate commitment to the cause

Minorities engage in extreme activities to draw attention to the cause

Researchers have questioned whether being consistent alone is enough

Had to decide on the amount of compensation to give a ski lift victim

When the confed wouldn't change from a low amount, the majority stuck together at the higher

When the confed changed his compensation offer a bit, so did the majority

Over time, people 'convert' and switch from the minority to the majority (more this happens, the faster the rate of conversion - snowball effect)

Gradually, the minority view becomes the majority and social change occurs

When the minority were inconsistent, they were generally ignored

Moscovici demonstrated that when minority are consitent, they can influence the majority

Ppts were then exposed to a conflicting view and their support was measured again

Martin et al (2003) gave ppts a message supporting a particular viewpoint and measured their support

People were less willing to change to the new view if they had listened to the minority

Suggests that the minority message was more deeply processed and had a more enduring effect

Findings lacks external validity and have limited real world applications

Most studies don't capture the commitment of the minorities including the social support that members give each other when the majority hostility overwhelms them

Moscovici found higher agreement with minority when ppts wrote their answers down